Monday, November 30, 2009

Barely looking at the Times website gave me the distinct impression that the great climate change science scandal can't turn back the tide toward modern eco friendly, sustainable everything. These words have permeated our cultures so thoroughly that boxes of goods now have things like Sustainabilty Factors listed on the outside. This is the poverty line that will be drawn between businesses, and to not endorse these fads and to not use the lingo in your advertising is cutting yourself off from the consumers who have been trained to expect it. It will get harder and harder for people who have studied and rejected as false the sustainable development agenda to participate in the business world, because, so far there's no hacked mushroom cloud revealing the entire purpose for the environmental movement and LA21 Programmes. Global governance is still way outside mainstream America's acceptable topic list.

From The Sunday Times

November 29, 2009

Climate change data dumped

Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

Roger Young wrote:I think you are missing the point about the Copenhagen Beano. It is to get political agreement to form global governance through the UN. Climate Change/Global Warming, call it what you want, is the cover. Read What Lord Monckton has to say about this meeting, at least he has had time to read the draft agreement and discover what our politicans are going to sign away on our behalf.This spat about the "hacked" emails is directing attention away from the full agenda of the Copenhagen meeting. A coincidence?

Sunday, November 29, 2009

We're working on the specs for a lightweight 14' PVC Gertee model, so tonight I went poking around the internet to see what other companies may be doing the same thing. The Shelter Systems are a different style, more "domish" than yurt, but they're under 2000 bucks and may suit people in warmer climates needing temporary shelter just fine. I've been to their site before, years ago when I was still doing lots of yurt research. I liked how much light they allow in. Kind of interesting to see them again after a few years of experience building my own and living in them full time. I had to hang dark materials all around my bed in order to sleep in the summer here with just a 4' skylight. But what a greenhouse they would make! Their 30' is only $1990. and it's 11' tall, 706 square ft, which is comparable to a small house. http://www.shelter-systems.com/large.html

Go Yurt promises they don't use any PVC... won't have to worry about competition from this company! They have a model that looks a lot like my bridal gertee did this past summer with the 360 degree windows. This is a very cute yurt: http://www.goyurt.com/models.php

We'll be setting the first pvc model up on Tim's trapline and I'll go along and take a bunch of pictures because the bears are pretty much gone by now. He says I have to get over my fear of the bears and I say, or not. I'm not afraid of them when I'm here in the campground, but the trapline and all these woods around here are a very scary place to someone like me. I really don't live in such wilderness that bears walk through my yard every day, but just a few miles away they're there. I'm going to be writing a training schedule for his new trapper's training camp, and in exchange he's indulging me with another gertee idea. He can't believe the makeshift back one is staying up with only 8 roof poles but his faith in my "gurkies" is getting stronger every year. Plus, he does want something out there for when he gets stuck in the snow and it's 50 below. If this model works for him and fits nicely on a dogsled, we may be able to start producing them, and at the very least I'll also have one to take outside on the road with me.

Several of the ideas are very creative, here's little boxes that could easily become the home of the future for the poorest members of society. I know in Japan they're renting little bedrooms with internet for people job hunting there. If I ever have to live in a box stacked on top of a bunch of other boxes, I'd like to try living in one these:

Saturday, November 28, 2009

The Anti Communitarian League is not a church. Our views are political, not religious. Our opposition is not based in the Bible and we do not quote from it as a basis for our argument. Our supporters come from all backgrounds, many different religions, and across the globe. We publish our strong and sometimes angry opinions, the opinions of others, and we often republish research documents and share exit links related to our ACL studies. We are not starting a political party and we will not show support for any established US political party either. We do on occassion support individual candidates who run as independents. (I am considering supporting the French Anti Zionist Party but I can't read any French.)

The ACL does not seek members. This is the only way to keep infiltrators out.We don't publish a newsletter.We don't require a login nor charge visitors access fees to the ACL website.We don't hold seminars.Since the Sisley and Dawson fiascos, we don't provide court research documents.

We reserve the right to sell our books to anyone and in any way we choose.We will no longer tolerate 'petit bourgeois' commentary on our lifestyle or choices.

I spent ten years trying to reach out to middle class America with my anticommunitarian works. In the course of the decade, I lost my home, my livlihood and most of my teeth. I find it "inconceiveable" that I am to be compelled to continue in my decline by Americans who plan to dictate my life from the comfort of their modern homes, receiving US government pensions.

As for my upcoming gertee book tour, as was reported by that article I linked to the other day, perhaps 50% of the American homeless population are Vietnam and other US wartime vets. I wonder how many of them are homeless because they rejected communitarianism.

Does anyone know if there's still a Vet camping year round by the DC Vietnam Memorial as part of the demand that the US government acknowledge the MIAs? I'd like to bring them a gift.

We just rented The Princess Bride for Freddie last month, so everytime I read the word "inconceivable" I clearly heard the voice of the character in the movie. which made this especially entertaining in a very strange way. Anyway, I like Mark Glenn, I referenced some of his work at the ACL a long time ago, even though I saw the leftist ties to the international peace set in his earlier work too. This article has punch. Thanks Susie! The comments look to be interesting too, a little bit of Constance Cumby's crowd, a little bit of religion and a whole lot of anti Israeli, plus a long response to Gilad Atzmon's defense of some guy named Larry who uriniated on a holy relic or something? Didn't have time to read the whole thing.. have to get back to work on the book. The worst part about having internet again is I have lots of online distractions, and all of them are worth my time too. But reading doesn't pay the bills, there does come a point when words need to appear on the page, and I can't live off melted snow forever. :)

Friday, November 27, 2009

I'm adding a bit of history to the gertee book, reading essays and book reviews about it, looked up the "official" definition again un US Code, etc. Found this essay to be the most thorough and thoughtful so far, and the author (a sociologist?) includes a brief history of the term. This is an excerpt, the entire article was worth the read, and his conclusion ties into Peter Myer's question about whether societies have rights. My question is beginning to be whether it is a crime to choose not be part of society. My choice to walk away from every attachment I had and forge a new life in a harsh climate in a homemade tent home has often been referred to as "mad," but I can see why I was also treated as if I had embraced a life of crime. My "crime" was to refuse to give up my bodily fluids to get a job, refuse to agree to background checks to get housing, and refuse to apply for government assistance anymore (I did when I was younger).

If you look to the history of Europe you find that homelessness first appears (or is first acknowledged) at the very same moment that bourgeois culture begins to appear. The same processes produced them both: the breakup of feudalism, the rise of commerce and cities, the combined triumphs of capitalism, industrialism, and individualism. The historian Fernand Braudel, in The Wheels of Commerce, describes, for instance, the armies of impoverished men and women who began to haunt Europe as far back as the eleventh century. And the makeup of these masses? Essentially the same then as it is now: the unfortunates, the throwaways, the misfits, the deviants. In the eighteenth century, all sorts and conditions were to be found in this human dross ... widows, orphans, cripples ... journeymen who had broken their contracts, out-of-work labourers, homeless priests with no living, old men, fire victims . . . war victims, deserters, discharged soldiers, would-be vendors of useless articles, vagrant preachers with or without licenses, 'pregnant servant-girls and unmarried mothers driven from home," children sent out "to find bread or to maraud."

Then, as now, distinctions were made between the "homeless" and the supposedly "deserving" poor, those who knew their place and willingly sustained, with their labors, the emergent bourgeois world.

The good paupers were accepted, lined up and registered on the official list; they had a right to public charity and were sometimes allowed to solicit it outside churches in prosperous districts, when the congregation came out, or in market places....

When it comes to beggars and vagrants, it is a very different story, and different pictures meet the eye: crowds, mobs, processions, sometimes mass emigrations, "along the country highways or the streets of the Towns and Villages," by beggars "whom hunger and nakedness has driven from home." . . . The towns dreaded these alarming visitors and drove them out as soon as they appeared on the horizon.

And just as the distinctions made about these masses were the same then as they are now, so too was the way society saw them. They seemed to bourgeois eyes (as they still do) the one segment of society that remained resistant to progress, unassimilable and incorrigible, inimical to all order.

It is in the nineteenth century, in the Victorian era, that you can find the beginnings of our modern strategies for dealing with the homeless: the notion that they should be controlled and perhaps eliminated through "help." With the Victorians we begin to see the entangling of self-protection with social obligation, the strategy of masking self-interest and the urge to control as moral duty. Michel Foucault has spelled this out in his books on madness and punishment: the zeal with which the overseers of early bourgeois culture tried to purge, improve, and purify all of urban civilization-whether through schools and prisons, or quite literally, with public baths and massive new water and sewage systems. Order, ordure - this is, in essence, the tension at the heart of bourgeois culture, and it was the singular genius of the Victorians to make it the main component of their medical, aesthetic, and moral systems. It was not a sense of justice or even empathy which called for charity or new attitudes toward the poor; it was hygiene. The very same attitudes appear in nineteenth-century America. Charles Loring Brace, in an essay on homeless and vagrant children written in 1876, described the treatment of delinquents in this way: "Many of their vices drop from them like the old and verminous clothing they left behind.... The entire change of circumstances seems to cleanse them of bad habits." Here you have it all: vices, verminous clothing, cleansing them of bad habits-the triple association of poverty with vice with dirt, an equation in which each term comes to stand for all of them.

These attitudes are with us still; that is the point. In our own century the person who has written most revealingly about such things is George Orwell, who tried to analyze his own middle-class attitudes toward the poor. In 1933, in Down and Out in Paris and London, he wrote about tramps:

In childhood we are taught that tramps are blackguards ... a repulsive, rather dangerous creature, who would rather die than work or wash, and wants nothing but to beg, drink or rob hen-houses. The tramp monster is no truer to life than the sinister Chinaman of the magazines, but he is very hard to get rid of. The very word tramp evokes his image.

All of this is still true in America, though now it is not the word "tramp" but the word "homeless" that evokes the images we fear. It is the homeless who smell. Here, for instance, is part of a paper a student of mine wrote about her first visit to a Rescue Mission on skid row.

The sermon began. The room was stuffy and smelly. The mixture of body odors and cooking was nauseating. I remember thinking: how can these people share this facility? They must be repulsed by each other. They had strange habits and dispositions. They were a group of dirty, dishonored, weird people to me.

When it was over I ran to my car, went home, and took a shower. I felt extremely dirty. Through the day I would get flashes of that disgusting smell.

To put it as bluntly as I can, for many of us the homeless are shit. And our policies toward them, our spontaneous sense of disgust and horror, our wish to be rid of them-all of this has hidden in it, close to its heart, our feelings about excrement. Even Marx, that most bourgeois of revolutionaries, described the deviant lumpen in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte as "scum, offal, refuse of all classes." These days, in puritanical Marxist nations, they are called "parasites" - a word, perhaps not incidentally, one also associates with human waste.

What I am getting at here is the nature of the desire to help the homeless- what is hidden behind it and why it so often does harm. Every government program, almost every private project, is geared as much to the needs of those giving help as it is to the needs of the homeless. Go to any government agency, or, for that matter, to most private charities, and you will find yourself enmeshed, at once, in a bureaucracy so tangled and oppressive, or confronted with so much moral arrogance and contempt, that you will be driven back out into the streets for relief.

Santa Barbara, where I live, is as good an example as any. There are three main shelters in the city-all of them private. Between them they provide fewer than a hundred beds a night for the homeless. Two of the three shelters are religious in nature: the Rescue Mission and the Salvation Army. In the mission, as in most places in the country, there are elaborate and stringent rules. Beds go first to those who have not been there for two months, and you can stay for only two nights in any two-month period. No shelter is given to those who are not sober. Even if you go to the mission only for a meal, you are required to listen to sermons and participate in prayer, and you are regularly proselytized-sometimes overtly, sometimes subtly. There are obligatory, regimented showers. You go to bed precisely at ten: lights out, no reading, no talking. After the lights go out you will find fifteen men in a room with double-decker bunks. As the night progresses the room grows stuffier and hotter. Men toss, turn, cough, and moan. In the morning you are awakened precisely at five forty-five. Then breakfast. At seven-thirty you are back on the street.

The town's newest shelter was opened almost a year ago by a consortium of local churches. Families and those who are employed have first call on the beds-a policy which excludes the congenitally homeless. Alcohol is not simply forbidden in the shelter; those with a history of alcoholism must sign a "contract" pledging to remain sober and chemical-free. Finally, in a paroxysm of therapeutic bullying, the shelter has added a new wrinkle: if you stay more than two days you are required to fill out and then discuss with a social worker a complex form listing what you perceive as your personal failings, goals, and strategies-all of this for men and women who simply want a place to lie down out of the rain! It is these attitudes, in various forms and permutations, that you find repeated endlessly in America. We are moved either to "redeem" the homeless or to punish them. Perhaps there is nothing consciously hostile about it. Perhaps it is simply that as the machinery of bureaucracy cranks itself up to deal with these problems, attitudes assert themselves automatically. But whatever the case, the fact remains that almost every one of our strategies for helping the homeless is simply an attempt to rearrange the world cosmetically, in terms of how it looks and smells to us.Compassion is little more than the passion for control.

The central question emerging from all this is, What does a society owe to its members in trouble, and how is that debt to be paid? It is a question which must be answered in two parts: first, in relation to the men and women who have been marginalized against their will, and then, in a slightly different way, in relation to those who have chosen (or accept or even prize) their marginality. As for those who have been marginalized against their wills, I think the general answer is obvious: A society owes its members whatever it takes for them to regain their places in the social order. And when it comes to specific remedies, one need only read backward the various processes which have created homelessness and then figure out where help is likely to do the most good. But the real point here is not the specific remedies required-affordable housing, say-but the basis upon which they must be offered, the necessary underlying ethical notion we seem in this nation unable to grasp: that those who are the inevitable casualties of modern industrial capitalism and the free market system are entitled, by right, and by the simple virtue of their participation in that system, to whatever help they need. They are entitled to help to find and hold their places in the society whose social contract they have, in effect, signed and observed. {emphasis added}

On page 19 of the Powerpoint PresentatationCollaboration: The Case for Strategic Pragmatism:

"Etzioni distnguishes between Coercive, Calculative and Normative Compliance. Coercive or physical power is related to total institutions, such as prisons or armies. Calculative compliance is related to 'rational' institutions, such as companies. normative compliance is related to institutions or organizations based in shared values, such as clubs and professional societies."

Our ACL homepage poll shows an overwhelming 91% of the respondents DO NOT want to overturn the US Constitution in favor of Communitarian Values. Etzioni's "shared values" are actually only shared in professional societies that promote global governance.

Here's clarification of where the above referenced paper came from:

Re: Climate Scandal - Futerra - Tavistock - Etzioni

Ok, guys. I should clarify that the Powerpoint document was NOT part of the hacked emails hacked from CRU. I obtained that from the British Library Archives after noticing the Tavistock signature within Futerra's methodology. The presentation hints at collaborative strategies...

Here's where my good friend Bobby Garner went with the hacked emails. Game Theory came up during our Hegelian dialectic research, but as a non scientist I steered way clear of that aspect. Bobby has the science background and works in a technical field, he's been instrumental in my basic understanding of the role science plays in the Communitarian plan for a new "global architecture." He sees the possibility that the emails were leaked as propaganda:

You have heard the news of the release of e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. The influential CRU claims the world's largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who's reports on Climate Change since 1992 have guided all world government's policy for meeting the dangers of Global Warming.

All frames of reference rest upon certain hypotheses, postulates and a priori assertions, assumptions and beliefs. The degree to which those hypotheses, postulates and, assertions are true defines the range of validity for every frame of reference. Each of those hypotheses, postulates and a priori assertions must be preserved if the frame of reference is to be maintained. The point at which they break down is where a particular frame of reference becomes ineffective and invalid. Therefore, by tampering with the hypotheses, postulates and a priori assertions, the reference frame may be shifted in any direction. Public Polling and so called "Scientific Studies" in combination with an effective propaganda machine, are hugely effective in disturbing the underlying hypotheses, postulates and assertions which demand a shift in the points of reference. All of the big issues of the day from feminism to gay rights to climate change and dozens more are all examples of a shifting social frame of reference. Each of them is the product of a winning game strategy devised by the global strategists.

Global Warming is an application of Game Theory defining a reference frame based on specific hypotheses, postulates, a priori assertions, assumptions and beliefs. Their basis in truth "defines the range of validity" for the "game" known as Global Warming.

Speaking of the validity, the hypotheses, postulates, a priori assertions, assumptions and beliefs supporting Global Warming have suddenly come under intense scrutiny. There are two possible scenarios regarding the public disclosure of some 3,600 e-mail messages from the archives of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England.

1. The e-mails were stolen by a hacker and published for the purpose of undermining the hypotheses, postulates, a priori assertions, assumptions and beliefs which support the Global Warming Game just as the "effective propaganda machine" claims.

or...

2. The e-mails were leaked to an "effective propaganda machine" by the game player's themselves for the purpose of shifting the "frame of reference" to induce a new public opinion of the game called Global Warming.

You will recognize the first of course as the official story published by the "effective propaganda machine" (the Internet), but that's precisely why we should question it and consider the possibility or probability that the second one may be the real reason.

So why would the game players wish to induce a major shift the public's perspective view of Global Warming?

Among the possible reasons are...:

Global Warming has not achieved the expected result, or has fail to achieve it within the needed time frame. Time is of the essence and it's getting short according to some World Servers of the Plan focused on the Venus Transit and 2012.

Another reason could be related to the sluggish return of sunspot cycle 24 and the predictions of a very weak cycle.

Another possibility could relate to the banking crisis and a collapsing global economy.

Or it could be all of the above.

There are plenty of reasons why Global Warming is no longer justifiable by the game players. It is very probable that Gore's green alliance with venture capital" came as it did in November of 2007 at the very bottom of the last sunspot cycle in order to realize the maximum benefit of the usual warming trend associated with increased sunspot activity as we entered the next cycle. At that time the projected peak of sunspot cycle 24 would fall in mid 2013. That projection has now necessarily been delayed by at least two years: " The sun is in the pits of a century-class solar minimum, and sunspots have been puzzlingly scarce for more than two years.". Adding to that disappointment, is the revised predictions for one of the weakest cycles in memory. With all of that development, we can add the effects of the lingering banking and financial crisis which most certainly poses a serious threat to the budding Green Economy which once held the promise of obscene profits for Gore's Green alliance of venture capitalists. In a Huffington Post article posted by Al Gore on July 17, 2008, he wrote:

"I don't remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously. Our economy is in terrible shape and getting worse, gasoline prices are increasing dramatically, and so are electricity rates. Jobs are being outsourced. Home mortgages are in trouble. Banks, automobile companies and other institutions we depend upon are under growing pressure. Distinguished senior business leaders are telling us that this is just the beginning unless we find the courage to make some major changes quickly....- Al Gore's Progress Report On the Antithesis To the Communitarian Synthesis

In addition to all of those problems, some of the released messages indicate possibly insurmountable problems with the data manipulation/modeling software programs in use by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. See Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails. Scroll down to the message by Harry Harris.

It's been a long time since we've seen such a well coordinated effort to ditch a failed policy, but I believe the evidence supports that conclusion. I have always believed that the NWO would come on the heels of a rapid succession of catastrophic events which would allow no other options. Events which could be manipulated to focus on the precise time when The Plan is finally realized. Several people whom I consider credible due to their positions in the movement, sincerely believe that the opportune time for the transition will be like a window which will be open for a period of time before it closes, not to open again for thousands of years. According to many of those sources, we are presently within that window of opportunity.

Many believe that the title of the defining document, UN/Local Agenda 21 implies the year 2021 as the latest possible date to have realized the Brave New World. If September 11, 2001 marked the opening of the window (as I believe it does), and 2021 marks the close, then we are approaching the very center where the odds of success are at their maximum. I have documented this window of opportunity on my Gateway To America's Destiny page.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

I started this plan last year but was unprepared to do it. Not the least of the glitches was the fact that I had no book yet. So, here we go again. I'm taking both my book and my skills on the road. I want to build gertees in homeless camps across America and give building seminars along the way. It matters a lot to me that I get out there and reconnect withpeople, see what's real, and maybe in some small way I can inspire alternatives to the "if I lose my house I'll die" syndrome.

I'm planning to start in Anchorage then head for Seattle. I think a week in each city should be enough time to contact contractors, churches, homeless orgs, newspapers, TV, bookstores , and others who may all help us find the space, the materials, and the interest. I'd love to put one up in front of every Food Bank.. but I'd also like to build insulated models fit for year round living. If we can build a 30' in Seattle that would be a perfect traveling road show tent. I think our evenings will be best spent making music, slam poetry, and sharing bread, libations and ideas with the people we meet. I'll really need to make money to make this happen, so I'm working hard to make the book accessible and thoughtful and going for mass market paperback distrbution. I want to take lots of tape and produce a documentary at the end of the experience.

Please let me know if you have ideas, suggestions, contributions, etc. I'm gonna need a lot of help to pull this off. Last year I got a couple nice invites to stay with people, I remember one gal in San Francisco whose email and contact info I have since lost. I don't really want to stay with people in their homes, I think I'll find a cheap used van or truck and make camps. I can pack a small gertee to live in on the top racks. No matter how cold it gets down there it won't seem like it's that cold to me. :) So, I will need spaces to set up camp. I will also need to adjust to a cell phone, and I hate phones so much it's one of my personal hurdles to modern life.

It was so peaceful here last night. I did some dishes, put a couple minis on etsy, found old friends on facebook, filled my woodboxes, practiced the guitar, unthawed things that were stored, and sewed on my fur blanket which is over half finished now. Everytime I thought about the gertee tour I cracked up laughing at the idea of me actually leaving my sanctuary and going into the most depressed places in the US. No wonder I stopped writing the book last year. This book is going to change my life in ways I can't imagine... and it's not fear that blocks me.. it's contentment in my current situation. I have so little in the way of food, drink and convienences, but I love my rustic little space in Camp Redington and I have healed myself here. Learning all the terrible things about globalism and the planned wrecking of the US economy knocked the wind right out of me. I've come 6 long years away from reading, studying and writing letters all night, going to meetings, posting flyers on my fence, and walking back and forth to the Seattle Dawson attorneys with copies of my hard won FOIAs. I never want to go back to being that flipped out and driven... but I have to find some drive to get this going.

I'm really looking forward to face meeting the friends I have made through the ACL and seeing my old friends who knew me before, as Nordica used to say, I took on the whole US government. I was so depressed winter 2002 when I went camping at John's pond in Hannsville, working like mad on the timelines for the lawyers, almost starving to death before my friend Patty made me come stay at her house in Kent. Wyoming was a grand interlude, but by the time we returned to Anchorage in 2005, I was lost. It wasn't until I came to the Basin in 2006 that I was able to actually finish 2020: Our Common Destiny. I camped here for that winter in a freezing wall tent dreaming about making gertees, and somehow my spirit for life returned. I found happiness again. Gertee, like my Nordica, saved my life. Maybe it can save others' too. I'll never know unless I take it to them.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Old Dog is sincerely looking for ways to stop the communitarian takeover of the United States, and he's put his full support behind this congress. I've been extremely leery of the whole revise the constitution groups, and I don't trust anyone who won't identify the new system as communitarian, but I LIKE the tone of this. I need to find out who the Alaskan delegates are.

PREAMBLE TO THE ARTICLES OF FREEDOM OF

CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 2009November 21, 2009

“In defense of a free people, the time has come to reassert our God-given natural rights and cast off tyranny.

Let the facts reveal – the Federal Government of the United States of America, which was instituted to protect the rights of individual citizens, instead – threatens our life, liberty and property through usurpations of the Constitution; and emboldened by our own lack of responsibility and due diligence in these matters, has exceeded its mandate, and abandoned those founding principles which have made our nation exceptional;

Our servant government has undertaken these unconstitutional actions in direct violation of their enumerated duties, to the detriment of the People’s liberty and the sovereignty of our Republic;

Over many years and spanning multiple political administrations, the People who have, in good conscience, attempted to deliberate our grievances and voice our dissent against these offensive actions through both petition and assembly, have been maligned and ignored with contempt;

The people of the several States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming, justly alarmed at these arbitrary and unconstitutional actions, have elected, constituted and appointed delegates to meet, and sit in general Congress in the city of St. Charles, Illinois.

Whereupon these delegates, as duly elected representatives of the several States, have gathered in defense of divine justice, liberty and the principles of limited government, and we stand in clear recognition of the supreme law of the land – the Constitution of the United States of America.

Therefore, We demand that Government immediately re-establish Constitutional rule of law, lest the People be forced to do so themselves; and we hereby serve notice that in the defense of Freedom and Liberty there shall be NO COMPROMISE to which we shall ever yield. “

Looked up Frederick II of Prussia tonight, then went and looked up General von Steuben who I thought was sent to aid the American Revolutionaries by Frederick. When we wrote the Manifesto back in 2003 it looked as if there was some kind of connection between Lafayette, Frederick II and Washington, and we thought it might have been the same order of freemasonry. But if wikipedia has it at all right, von Steuben was a friend of the Compte St Germain who introduced him to Ben Franklin in France. St. Germain is quite the historical character but my knowledge of him comes mainly from my research into the New Age arena.

Reading Steubens' page led me to the Society of the Cincinnati, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Cincinnati, which I've never heard about to my recollection. Nordica did get a history award from the Daughters of the American Revolution which is an offshoot of the Society, but I barely paid any attention to who the Daughters were when we attended the luncheon (especially after the opening speaker declared himself to be a "racist" and went on to explain he meant it as something "good." I had invited Nordica's 5th grade teacher who submitted the essay, which was how Nord won. She was a black woman. Juanita Falls was the best teacher Nordica ever had, and Juanita refused to get insulted and made Nordica sit down and shut up after Nordica rose in indignation and declared she was leaving). So yeah, this is such an important piece of US history, I'll be giving it more attention when time allows. But check out all the presidents who were members.. and isn't is bizarre that Aaron Burr was a member even though he committed treason against the US? Alexander Hamilton was a member too.. was their disagreement that led to the duel in which Burr shot and killed Hamilton in any way connected to their meetings at the Society? Were they even members at the same time?

Sunday, November 22, 2009

"Repeating a theme he used abroad, Obama told the U.S. audience that the discussions directly affect U.S. national security."

Here's another one from Consuelo, and it's even more interesting now that angrycheese has identified the role Communitarian authority Henry Tam from Singapore plays in the emerging global synthesis. It's also relevant to what my sister Susan was telling me yesterday what she's observing in Boise, Idaho where she lives. She told me the layoffs keep coming and people are scared. We talked about how many have already or will resort to underhandedness on the job to keep their positions. She guesses Boise's unemployment has reached 20% because she includes all the people not officially on unemployment. She works for a major corporation that a year ago supported over 200,000 people; now that number has swiftly decreased, with something like 130,000 jobs left (I forget the exact numbers).

It was the communist leaders who lamented on the equilibrium between industry and agriculture that kept America so strong. Lenin insisted American manufacturing had to suffer severe blows before global communism could become a reality. And so it has. Modern Americans are to depend on communist China to bring back American jobs.... how's that for a communitarian synthesis between communism and capitalism?

The Chinese government is the United States' biggest foreign creditor with $800 billion of federal U.S. debt, which gives it extraordinary power in the relationship. And Beijing feels the global recession, sparked by U.S. financial industry excesses, vindicates its authoritarian leadership.

Obama told Americans that there can be no solutions to climate change or energy without the cooperation of Asian and Pacific nations. Repeating a theme he used abroad, Obama told the U.S. audience that the discussions directly affect U.S. national security.

Obama's NOT lying when he says his trips directly affect American security. What he doesn't say is his trade plans with China, Russia, Israel, South America and the widely accepted "model" Communitarian EU will help the Communitarian globalists to eliminate our national sovereignty, which most definitely affects our national security. Obama's not saying he's going to help restore America's manufacturing and agricultural base, nor does he promise to restore small businesses to their proper place in a free society. He calls for greater cooperation with communists... says if we buy more slave made goods our economy can recover.

Years ago Nordica opined that the real NWO leaders were Chinese women playing ma jong (sp?). We both agreed that it makes perfect sense that the power behind communitarianism would be content to remain unseen. We decided anyone we could identify was not at the top, because the real top is content to let the negative attention fall on their most obvious agents (like the Rothschilds, Bilderbergs, Rockefellers etc) and all their most visable authoritarian programs.

Added a video of Henry Tam cheese sent me, can't watch it on my dialup, but it's a perfect example of the Communitarians ability to LIE. This video, titled

allows no citizen comments, no citizen ratings, and no citizen video responses. That's Deliberative Democracy in a nutshell. Community Empowerment does not actually mean empowering the indviduals who reside and do business in the community. It empowers the Community Developers, who are Harvardly endowed with great unreported powers over individuals.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Archbishop Cramer has a very interesting take on the new EU President, and he uses a picture of Gollum next to him; in my R rated youtube video I put Gollum next to Xavier Solana:

Who is he?

God knows.

But perhaps that’s the point.

Just as the Son of God was incarnate as a humble carpenter in Galilee, so Satan does not always appear as an angel of light: sometimes he just skulks incognito, concealed in tenebrous anonymity until the time is right for him to reveal himself. And Herman Van Rompuy-Stiltskin looks far more like the spawn of Gollum that a credible, charismatic, inspirational ‘President of Europe’ who can 'represent the interests’ and 'fulfil the purposes’ of European Union on the world stage. Of course, one should not judge by appearances, but in this instance Cranmer will make an exception. The first President / Emperor of Europe for five centuries is everyone’s third choice and has all the appearance of low-key, lightweight, compromise non-entity; there is nothing presidential about him at all. He looks like just another committee man, of which we have too many already.http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/11/rompuy-stiltskin-first-president-of.html

Don't forget to call in during the second half with questions for Niki. 724-444-7444........She'll be happy to hear from you. See you Thursday night at 8pm EST!!! Susie............................................................................................ DON'T GET DUMPED AGAIN!! Download TalkShoe Pro today!

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

I wanted to do a quick update at the ACL and was looking for recent references to communitarianism in the news and found this hilarious site! It's an Outpatient Gulag Program!

"I think it’s high time we dealt with that pesky, old document called the Constitution. We need a new document. One that reflects the compassion, the caring of the new Communitarian movement ( formerly known as the world of next Tuesday). A document that all can rally around. The blueprint for the new Utopian Society of this the 21st Century. " We The GovernmentBy Grigori E.R.9/16/2009, 10:19 pm

Monday, November 16, 2009

When two people argue over opposing ideals, that is a dialectical argument. In most cases, this is the formula used throughout American discourse. The sides to all our philosophical and moral dilemmas have already been established, and most sides have been given an ideological title that defines their full political or religious position.

So it goes. Every day our friends and family state what they are "for" and the only choice we have is to agree or defend the predetermined "opposition" side. If we do not agree with their stand on any issue, our loved and cherished ones are allowed (in a dialectical debate) to insist we hold another set of beliefs, that they will name for us.

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne wrote in 2002 that the last great debate in American politics would be between the Libertarians and the Communitarians. It was most depressing to see that the Libertarians had no intention of showing up for that great debate. When I investigated the Libertarian principles more in depth, I found their party founder to be a free trade internationalist. So the last great debate was supposed to be between two sides holding the exact same ultimate values and principles. It's no wonder the Libertarians shrank from it and refused to even identify it by name in their official party publications. Rank and file Libs don't have a clue what communitarianism is, and it's been the prevailing policy objective since 1992! Of course that goes for registered Republicans and Democrats as well, who obviously never listen to what Bill Clinton keeps saying to Canadians.

I started pestering the Communitarian Network and specifically Amitai Etzioni for an open, public debate about their Platform and 2020 vision for the United States in 2003. That was the original purpose for the ACL website. I presented my thesis in ASA format and asked for peer reviews. I asked for one college program in the entire United States to consider including anti communitarian studies as part of their pro communitarian curriculum. I kept trying in various ways to present another view of communitarianism to academia, but somewhere along the way I lost interest in pushing up that river. The only view of communitarianism allowed in US schools is positive; all opposition has been silenced, before it even materialized.

The Communitarians' problem with participating in real debates with real Americans is their philosophical foundation is entirely based in the Hegelian dialectic. Their final synthesis between all contradictions is supposed to be so perfect it gives rise to no anti thesis. There can be no valid objections to the ultimate 3rd way, otherwise it can not be ultimate.

So the goal of all dialectically trained change agents is to keep the debates within the confines of the dialectic, reduce our arguments down to two sides (thesis v antithesis) and never allow the debate to become a debate against the synthesis (communitarianism, 3rd Way, 3rd Sector).

What I need to decide is whether to engage in arguments with people who practice the dialectic. And how tricky do I have to become in order to force them into debating the ultimate synthesis?

The debate with Myers extended into a debate with Vinay, the creator of Hexayurts, who does not claim to be a communitarian, yet here I am accusing him of being one. That makes me just as gulity of telling him what his side is as people who identify me as a Libertarian or an Anarchist. This is a real dilemma for me. I don't want to box anyone into what I identify as their ideology. Does it matter that I can find many, many communitarian ideals in his proposals and manifesto? How am I supposed to debate communitarian principles endorsed by men like Vinay and Myers if they themselves do not identify their ideas as communitarian?

I am really not interested in debating any one of the thousands of theses and antitheses that led to the final communitarian synthesis. If I'm going to put my time into it, I want to debate the whole communitarian system as a whole, and as it exists NOW, all around the world. Where is THAT debate? That's the debate someone needs to have with Obama when he runs next time.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

So good to have access again, sure am making up for lost time today. Brought in 6 loads of wood, still using that canvas bag I cut open and it's a coatsaver. It was 20 below today, apparently I'm in one of the coldest spots in the Basin, 100 feet away it warms up 10 degrees. Staying warm though, just started a small fire in the second woodstove about an hour ago cause it was getting a little nippy over by the connecting door. Shovelled trails to the outhouse and woodpile and buried the new phone cord, wore my new (used) Helly Hensen snowsuit and my homemade fox hat and felt invigorated to be out in the real cold again.

Last winter I was really hoping I wouldn't be camping in a gertee again this winter, and I dreaded it all summer long. Funny how now it's here and I'm so okay with the way it's set up I'm not even that depressed about it. It was 20 above in here when I finally woke after sleeping a full 8 hours and not getting up to stoke the fire. I won't be doing that much longer, eep. But, I've come a LONG way from the wall tent I lived in four winters ago, and it's not hard to be grateful for my beautiful three room home. I have a large kitchen with a manageable dish station, separated the fresh water from the slop bucket, a dining area, an entryway with a bench, boot storage, 2 big wood stacks and water storage for 9 5 ,gallon buckets combined with room to store lots of gear, coats, hats, gloves, flashlights and my trusty led headlamp (I really need more of these). It can be very dark here with no streetlights and the sun goes down about 5:30 now. So far I've managed to push myself out the door to do my chores before it gets dark so I don't use up my lights. I have to hand fill the sun shower bags with water I heat on the stove, but yes, it's pure luxury really... I have a private, inside, heated shower/bath area and an attached toilet room that stays lots colder than the house so you can't smell it! So yes, I think I have a lovely space to get back to writing again.

Anyway.... this rebuttal to Myers has turned into an interesting quest, because I don't believe I've ever focused on what Individual Rights means. It's one of those things I just assume we all already know... cause we do... just not at this level. One thing's very clear so far though, there is no evidence to support the existance of Society Rights... it's barely even a term.

Now the rights of persons that are commanded to be observed by the municipal law are of two sorts; first, such as are due from every citizen, which are usually called civil duties; and, secondly, such as belong to him, which is the more popular acceptation of rights or jura. Both may indeed be comprized in this latter division; for, as all social duties are of a relative nature, at the same time that they are due from one man, or set of men, they must also be due to another. But I apprehend it will be more clear and easy, to consider many of them as duties required from, rather than as rights belonging to, particular persons. Thus, for instance, allegiance is usually, and therefore most easily, considered as the duty of the people, and protection as the duty of the magistrate; and yet they are, reciprocally, the rights as well as duties of each other. Allegiance is the right of the magistrate, and protection the right of the people.

Persons also are divided by the law into either natural persons, or artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us: artificial are such as created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government; which are called corporations or bodies politic.

The rights of persons considered in their natural capacities are also of two sorts, absolute, and relative. Absolute, which are such as appertain and belong to particular men, merely as individuals or single persons: relative, which are incident to them as members of society, and standing in various relations to each other. The first, that is, absolute rights, will be the subject of the present chapter.

By the absolute rights of individuals we mean those which are so in their primary and strictest sense; such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is intitled to enjoy whether out of society or in it. But with regard to the absolute duties, which man is bound to perform considered as a mere individual, it is not to be expected that any human municipal laws should at all explain or enforce them. For the end and intent of such laws being only to regulate the behaviour of mankind, as they are members of society, and stand in various relations to each other, they have consequently no business or concern with any but social or relative duties. Let a man therefore be ever so abandoned in his principles, or vitious in his practice, provided he keeps his wickedness to himself, and does not offend against the rules of public decency, he is out of the reach of human laws. But if he makes his vices public, though they be such as seem principally to affect himself, (as drunkenness, or the like) they then become, by the bad example they set, of pernicious effects to society; and therefore it is then the business of human laws to correct them. Here the circumstance of publication is what alters the nature of the case. Public sobriety is a relative duty, and therefore enjoined by our laws: privaterights, sobriety is an absolute duty, which, whether it be performed or not, human tribunals can never know; and therefore they can never enforce it by any civil sanction. But, with respect to the case is different. Human laws define and enforce as well those rights which belong to a man considered as an individual, as those which belong to him considered as related to others.

For the principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature; but which could not be preserved in peace without that mutual assistance and intercourse, which is gained by the institution of friendly and social communities. Hence it follows, that the first and primary end of human laws is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals. Such rights as are social and relative result from, and are posterior to, the formation of states and societies: so that to maintain and regulate these, is clearly a subsequent consideration. And therefore the principal view of human laws is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce such rights as are absolute, which in themselves are few and simple; and, then, such rights as are relative, which arising from a variety of connexions, will be far more numerous and more complicated. These will take up a greater space in any code of laws, and hence may appear to be more attended to, though in reality they are not, than the rights of the former kind. Let us therefore proceed to examine how far all laws ought, and how far the laws of England actually do, take notice of these absolute rights, and provide for their lasting security.

The absolute rights of man, considered as a free agent, endowed with discernment to know good from evil, and with power of choosing those measures which appear to him to be most desirable, are usually summed up in one general appellation, and denominated the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature: being a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of free-will. But every man, when he enters into society, gives up a part of his natural liberty, as the price of so valuable a purchase; and, in consideration of receiving the advantages of mutual commerce, obliges himself to conform to those laws, which the community has thought proper to establish. And this species of legal obedience and conformity is infinitely more desirable, than that wild and savage liberty which is sacrificed to obtain it. For no man, that considers a moment, would wish to retain the absolute and uncontroled power of doing whatever he pleases; the consequence of which is, that every other man would also have the same power; and then there would be no security to individuals in any of the enjoyments of life. Political therefore, or civil, liberty, which is that of a member of society, is no other than natural liberty so far restrained by human laws (and no farther) as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the publick. Hence we may collect that the law, which restrains a man from doing mischief to his fellow citizens, though it diminishes the natural, increases the civil liberty of mankind: but every wanton and causeless restraint of the will of the subject, whether practiced by a monarch, a nobility, or a popular assembly, is a degree of tyranny. Nay, that even laws themselves, whether made with or without our consent, if they regulate and constrain our conduct in matters of mere indifference, without any good end in view, are laws destructive of liberty: whereas if any public advantage can arise from observing such precepts, the control of our private inclinations, in one or two particular points, will conduce to preserve our general freedom in others of more importance; by supporting that state, of society, which alone can secure our independence. Thus the statute of king Edward IV, which forbad the fine gentlemen of those times (under the degree of a lord) to wear pikes upon their shoes or boots of more than two inches in length, was a law that savoured of oppression; because, however ridiculous the fashion then in use might appear, the restraining it by pecuniary penalties could serve no purpose of common utility. But the statute of king Charles II, which prescribes a thing seemingly as indifferent; viz. a dress for the dead, who are all ordered to be buried in woollen; is a law consistent with public liberty, for it encourages the staple trade, on which in great measure depends the universal good of the nation. So that laws, when prudently framed, are by no means subversive but rather introductive of liberty; for (as Mr Locke has well observed) where there is no law, there is no freedom. But then, on the other hand, that constitution or frame of government, that system of laws, is alone calculated to maintain civil liberty, which leaves the subject entire master of his own conduct, except in those points wherein the public good requires some direction or restraint.

The idea and practice of this political or civil liberty flourish in their highest vigour in these kingdoms, where it falls little short of perfection, and can only be lost or destroyed by the folly or demerits of it's owner: the legislature, and of course the laws of England, being peculiarly adapted to the preservation of this inestimable blessing even in the meanest subject. Very different from the modern constitutions of other states, on the continent of Europe, and from the genius of the imperial law; which in general are calculated to vest an arbitrary and despotic power of controlling the actions of the subject in the prince, or in a few grandees. And this spirit of liberty is so deeply implanted in our constitution, and rooted even in our very soil, that a slave or a negro, the moment he lands in England, falls under the protection of the laws, and with regard to all natural rights becomes eo instanti a freeman.

The absolute rights of every Englishman (which, taken in a political and extensive sense, are usually called their liberties) as they are founded on nature and reason, so they are coeval with our form of government; though subject at times to fluctuate and change: their establishment (excellent as it is) being still human. At some times we have seen them depressed by overbearing and tyrannical princes; at others so luxuriant as even to tend to anarchy, a worse state than tyranny itself, as any government is better than none at all. But the vigour of our free constitution has always delivered the nation from these embarassments, and, as soon as the convulsions consequent on the struggle have been over, the ballance of our rights and liberties has settled to it's proper level; and their fundamental articles have been from time to time asserted in parliament, as often as they were thought to be in danger.

. . . . .

It must be owned that Mr Locke, and other theoretical writers, have held, that "there remains still inherent in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them: for when such trust is abused, it is thereby forfeited, and devolves to those who gave it." But however just this conclusion may be in theory, we cannot adopt it, nor argue from it, under any dispensation of government at present actually existing. For this devolution of power, to the people at large, includes in it a dissolution of the whole form of government established by that people, reduces all the members to their original state of equality, and by annihilating the sovereign power repeals all positive laws whatsoever before enacted. No human laws will therefore suppose a case, which at once must destroy all law, and compel men to build afresh upon a new foundation; nor will they make provision for so desperate an event, as must render all legal provisions ineffectual. So long therefore as the English constitution lasts, we may venture to affirm, that the power of parliament is absolute and without control.

. . . . .

Next, as to cases of ordinary public oppression, where the vitals of the constitution are not attacked, the law hath also assigned a remedy. For, as a king cannot misuse his power, without the advice of evil counsellors, and the assistance of wicked ministers, these men may be examined and punished. The constitution has therefore provided, by means of indictments, and parliamentary impeachments, that no man shall dare to assist the crown in contradiction to the laws of the land. But it is at the same time a maxim in those laws, that the king himself can do no wrong; since it would be a great weakness and absurdity in any system of positive law, to define any possible wrong, without any possible redress.

For, as to such public oppressions as tend to dissolve the constitution, and subvert the fundamentals of government, they are cases which the law will not, out of decency, suppose; being incapable of distrusting those, whom it has invested with any part of the supreme power; since such distrust would render the exercise of that power precarious and impracticable. For, where-ever the law expresses it's distrust of abuse of power, it always vests a superior coercive authority in some other hand to correct it; the very notion of which destroys the idea of sovereignty. If therefore (for example) the two houses of parliament, or either of them, had avowedly a right to animadvert on the king, or each other, or if the king had a right to animadvert on either of the houses, that branch of the legislature, so subject to animadversion, would instantly cease to be part of the supreme power; the ballance of the constitution would be overturned; and that branch or branches, in which this jurisdiction resided, would be completely sovereign. The supposition of law therefore is, that neither the king nor either house of parliament (collectively taken) is capable of doing any wrong; since in such cases the law feels itself incapable of furnishing any adequate remedy. For which reason all oppressions, which may happen to spring from any branch of the sovereign power, must necessarily be out of the reach of any stated rule, or express legal provision: but, if ever they unfortunately happen, the prudence of the times must provide new remedies upon new emergencies.

Indeed, it is found by experience, that whenever the unconstitutional oppressions, even of the sovereign power, advance with gigantic strides and threaten desolation to a state, mankind will not be reasoned out of the feelings of humanity; nor will sacrifice their liberty by a scrupulous adherence to those political maxims, which were originally established to preserve it. And therefore, though the positive laws are silent, experience will furnish us with a very remarkable case, wherein nature and reason prevailed. When king James the second invaded the fundamental constitution of the realm, the convention declared an abdication, whereby the throne was rendered vacant, which induced a new settlement of the crown. And so far as this precedent leads, and no farther, we may now be allowed to lay down the law of redress against public oppression. If therefore any future prince should endeavour to subvert the constitution by breaking the original contract between king and people, should violate the fundamental laws, and should withdraw himself out of the kingdom; we are now authorized to declare that this conjunction of circumstances would amount to an abdication, and the throne would be thereby vacant. But it is not for us to say, that any one, or two, of these ingredients would amount to such a situation; for there our precedent would fail us. In these therefore, or other circumstances, which a fertile imagination may furnish, since both law and history are silent, it becomes us to be silent too; leaving to future generations, whenever necessity and the safety of the whole shall require it, the exertion of those inherent (though latent) powers of society, which no climate, no time, no constitution, no contract, can ever destroy or diminish.

. . . . .

After what has been premised in this chapter, I shall not (I trust) be considered as an advocate for arbitrary power, when I lay it down as a principle, that in the exertion of lawful prerogative, the king is and ought to be absolute; that is, so far absolute, that there is no legal authority that can either delay or resist him. He may reject what bills, may make what treaties, may coin what money, may create what peers, may pardon what offences he pleases: unless where the constitution hath expressly, or by evident consequence, laid down some exception or boundary; declaring, that thus far the prerogative shall go and no farther. For otherwise the power of the crown would indeed be but a name and a shadow, insufficient for the ends of government, if, where it's jurisdiction is clearly established and allowed, any man or body of men were permitted to disobey it, in the ordinary course of law: I say, in the ordinary course of law; for I do not now speak of those extraordinary recourses to first principles, which are necessary when the contracts of society are in danger of dissolution, and the law proves too weak a defence against the violence of fraud or oppression. And yet the want of attending to this obvious distinction has occasioned these doctrines, of absolute power in the prince and of national resistance by the people, to be much misunderstood and perverted by the advocates for slavery on the one hand, and the demagogues of faction on the other. The former, observing the absolute sovereignty and transcendent dominion of the crown laid down (as it certainly is) most strongly and emphatically in our lawbooks, as well as our homilies, have denied that any case can be excepted from so general and positive a rule; forgetting how impossible it is, in any practical system of laws, to point out beforehand those eccentrical remedies, which the sudden emergence of national distress may dictate, and which that alone can justify. On the other hand, over-zealous republicans, feeling the absurdity of unlimited passive obedience, have fancifully (or sometimes factiously) gone over to the other extreme: and, because resistance is justifiable to the person of the prince when the being of the state is endangered, and the public voice proclaims such resistance necessary, they have therefore allowed to every individual the right of determining this expedience, and of employing private force to resist even private oppression. A doctrine productive of anarchy, and (in consequence) equally fatal to civil liberty as tyranny itself. For civil liberty, rightly understood, consists in protecting the rights of individuals by the united force of society: society cannot be maintained, and of course can exert no protection, without obedience to some sovereign power: and obedience is an empty name, if every individual has a right to decide how far he himself shall obey.

Here's an idea that came from one of my instructables subscribers. It's exciting to see people change the way they see housing, even if they are doing it within the confines of the global sustainable slavery agenda. Global NGOs are the main avenue for spreading good information, and we may have to take Gertee into the dialectical fray before all is said and done.

This whole thing about Soft Development Plans smacks heavily of British-Israeli imperialist elitist propaganda (they're going to "remake the lifestyle niche" of half the world's population):

"Our goal is simple - to remake the "lifestyle niche" of the smallholder organic farmers who comprise half of the human population into something which is healthy, prosperous, stable, environmentally benign, and includes health care and health maintenance, access to energy and education, and many other improvements. The bedrock of this transformation is appropriate technology deployed as whole systems, not as the stand-alone stepwise improvements of the past which have had such mixed success. "

My personal feelings are that gertee offers more of a home atmosphere and makes for better long term housing, but I will reserve judgement until after I spend an Alaska winter living in a hexayurt. I know 4 foot walls are uncomfortable for me, a 5'3" woman, and am guessing it would be mighty uncomfortable for a 6' man. Maybe half the world's population is under 4'? I'm also dismayed to see that alternative housing is part of a "bigger" vision for people without homes... tied together with education, health care and health maintenance... it's almost an Obamination.

Was Fort Hood really the target of a terrorist attack? The first clue to the real culprit emerged when Senator Joe Lieberman sought to blame this mass murder on the U.S. military. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, he promised hearings on how the Pentagon protects its personnel from domestic terrorists.

Will Lieberman, an avowed Zionist, use this incident to insist that the U.S. do more to protect Jewish nationalists? More importantly, what do his concerns mean for homeland security?Joe Lieberman has an ally in Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security. In April, this former Arizona governor warned about potential terrorism from U.S. troops returning from deployment in the Middle East. Though roundly attacked, she defended her position, calling it an "assessment not an accusation."

When Army Major Nidal Hasan killed U.S. troops on the nation's largest military base, was this evidence of "militant Islam"? Or did this military psychiatrist snap under pressure while treating returning vets on a base averaging ten suicides a month? Is there an undisclosed agenda behind those seeking to portray this act as the work of "Islamo fascists"?

To answer these questions requires a grasp of how "assets" are deployed by those skilled at waging war by way of deception. An asset is someone who has been profiled in sufficient depth that-when placed in a pre-staged time, place and circumstance-the person can be relied on to behave consistent with their profile.

Best Story Wins

Since the end of the Cold War, the predominant geopolitical narrative has been The Clash of Civilizations and its military counterpart: The Global War on Terrorism. How better to advance that storyline than to kill American soldiers even before they leave the U.S.? What's the motive?

Imagine if the intelligence that induced the U.S. to war was proven "fixed" around a preset goal. What if the common source of that treachery is poised to become transparent? If you were complicit in this deception (an act of treason), how would you obscure those facts? How would you sustain a "Muslim terrorist" narrative once the intelligence "facts" are exposed as pre-staged fictions meant to advance an undisclosed Israeli agenda?

For those marketing The Clash premise, Dr. Hasan's psychotic break was a blessing. At Family Security Matters, President Carol Taber describes this incident as "the Ft. Hood terrorist attack" by an "Islamist gunman." Editor Pam Meister promotes "the shocking TRUTH (sic) behind these attacks so that we might ward off those yet to come." Executive Vice-President Linda Cohen, who also serves as a trustee of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), offers advice certain to appeal to Lieberman and Napolitano:

"No one is safe now. Not you, not the military, not your children, not office workers nor subway riders, nor anyone who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Is there a precedent for combining aberrant behavior and a mass murder to advance a preset agenda? Do you recall the sniper attacks around Washington, D.C. in October 2002?

Those murders commenced one day before debate began on Senate Resolution 46 proposed by Joe Lieberman to authorize the use of U.S. forces in Iraq. In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, Lieberman and Arizona Senator John McCain urged that the U.S. target not Al Qaeda but Iraq.

The nation's capital became a city under siege when those attacks created insecurity and heightened anxiety as serial murders left ten dead and three wounded over a 10-day period. Those random shootings transformed the terror of 9-11 into a personal reality for Washington residents while Lieberman deployed phony intelligence to promote the invasion of a nation that had no hand in the mass murder of 9-11.

Assets and Sayanim

Once again: assets are profiled personalities catalyzed to act out known dysfunctions in ways that are advantageous based on the time, place and circumstances of their behavior. The totality of the facts suggests that Dr. Nidal Hasan may well have been such an asset.

Assets are typically identified, profiled and developed over lengthy periods of time. Their potential to act out a known personality disorder is held in reserve in the same way that a military commander holds troops in reserve for deployment at an opportune time.

How is an asset developed in plain sight and then tasked at the right moment? Only a careful investigation can identify those influences particular to Dr. Hasan, including what decisions led to his transfer to Ft. Hood and the circumstances there that triggered his behavior.

News reports to date are consistent with this analysis. For instance, his name appears as a participant for public briefings at the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University. As a registrant in the Obama presidential transition task force ("Thinking Anew-Security Priorities for the Next Administration"), he would have interacted with a team of nine "task force briefers." Judging from their surnames, at least seven were Ashkenazim.

As a combat-stress psychiatrist, Dr. Hasan dealt daily with troubled vets at Walter Reed Hospital where the most grievously wounded are sent to recover, many of them amputees, disfigured or otherwise handicapped for life. While coping with that vicarious trauma, he was taunted for his Muslim beliefs and harassed for his Middle Eastern heritage even though he was born, raised and educated in the U.S..

Despite clear indications of internal turmoil, including repeated attempts to resign his commission, he was dispatched to a post known for its huge population of combat-stressed vets. He arrived anticipating orders to deploy to Afghanistan, realizing his worst nightmare. Meanwhile a commander-in-chief promising change made matters even worse in the region.

Israeli psy-ops rely on an extensive cadre of sayanim (Hebrew for volunteers) who are shielded from legal culpability by being told only enough to perform their narrow role when tasked to assist with operations on an as-needed basis. Otherwise, they gather and report useful intelligence. Thus the presence of sayanim throughout the U.S. government. A sayan may well have identified Nidal Hasan as a potential asset who could be developed and, as here, deployed.

At What Cost?

With evidence emerging that Israelis and pro-Israelis were the source of the sham intelligence that induced the U.S. to war, those responsible are scrambling to cover their tracks. Americans will soon realize what the facts confirm: Jewish nationalists deceived the U.S. in order to deploy our military to pursue Israel's expansionist agenda for the Middle East.

Americans will soon awaken to the cost of this entangled alliance in blood and treasure. U.S. deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan have topped 6000 with well over one million Iraqis and Afghanis dead from the wars and from violence unleashed by those who manipulated this alliance to induce an invasion.

That brings us back to the uncomfortable but essential question: Was Homeland Security created to protect the U.S.? Or was it created to protect those who deceived the U.S.? Was this incident another example of the murderous misdirection deployed to pit Americans against Muslims to advance unacknowledged Zionist goals?

By shifting blame to the military, do Lieberman and Napolitano intend to use federal law enforcement to contain the outraged reaction of an informed public and an awakened military? Was Dr. Nidal Hasan a terrorist? Or was he a troubled pawn in an ongoing psy-ops campaign meant to revive a narrative that-like the fixed intelligence-was losing credibility?

Both the false intelligence and the anti-Muslim narrative feature a theme of fomenting hate and intolerance. On October 28th, President Obama signed into law ADL's model hate crime legislation. Will that federal law now be deployed by Homeland Security to silence those who make transparent the common source of this deception?

How much longer before a long-deceived public-both in the U.S. and abroad-takes the steps required to ensure that never again is duplicity allowed to operate on such a scale?

Donate Here!

About Me

2020 / TACM

Available NOW in PDF eBook

Translate

Search This Blog

I'm Niki Raapana, an independent researcher, co-founder of the Anti Communitarian League (ACL) with Nordica Friedrich, co- author of 2020: Our Common Destiny and co-author of the Anti Communitarian Manifesto.